Longest stretch of world peace just happened...

[Ego Tripping]

You wouldn't know it by watching the news, I'm sure!

Figured this was better outside of A&P...

Farewell to world peace? | csmonitor.com

Great part:

An international consensus has developed that war is an unacceptable way of resolving disputes between nations. Russia's intervention in Georgia further damaged a norm already battered by the US invasion of Iraq in 2003. It will take leadership, restraint, and serious multi-lateral effort to enforce and reinforce this global consensus against international conflict, with the concentrated destruction that such wars entail.

[Canuck Wisdom]

Interesting link.

By 'peace' it means no inter-state conflicts, for those who didnt read.

[Bad dog]

What did you think was going to happen?

They've spent so much money on weapons over the last few decades, did you really think that the General's would collect so many toys and not use them?

It's human nature, welcome to WW3

[Prophet Saddam]

Originally Posted by Bad dog

What did you think was going to happen?

They've spent so much money on weapons over the last few decades, did you really think that the General's would collect so many toys and not use them?

It's human nature, welcome to WW3

Thanks, but no thanks

[Ego Tripping]

Originally Posted by Bad dog

What did you think was going to happen?

They've spent so much money on weapons over the last few decades, did you really think that the General's would collect so many toys and not use them?

It's human nature, welcome to WW3

Yeah, I completely disagree.

[SmokeSomeDoja]

thats pretty sweet. i thought there was going to be some more war this century.

dumb me.

[SmokeSomeDoja]

this is a pretty stupid statistic:

"With the news so full of violence, you may not have noticed that the world was at peace. But ever since India and Pakistan signed a cease-fire in November 2003, there have been no wars between governments. That's 1,716 straight days of world peace. Russia's invasion ended the streak on Aug. 8."


how the hell can the world be at peace when there are wars going on? what ever happened to afghanistan and iraq, according to this person? there is not war going on after war is declared in 2003?


and its stupid to say that the world has reached a consensus on anything, much less the viability of war....especially considering the most powerful countries in the world still use and promote war without caring what the rest of the world thinks.



edit: not to mention the dumb definition.

theres no conflict or war going on....only some "interstate" shit that no one cares about. global peace yea!

[Captain Cannabis]

[verklingen]

Originally Posted by SmokeSomeDoja

theres no conflict or war going on....only some "interstate" shit that no one cares about. global peace yea!

i take it as a good sign that nations have leaned toward using diplomacy to solve international problems. you don't think that's a step forward worthy of mention?

and it's not that civil violence doesn't matter or isn't terrible, it's that the violence is being isolated within the state instead of spilling between states. in other words, nations are taking care of problems within their nation how they'd like to take care of them while tending toward taking care of the problems they have with other nations how other nations would like them to. i call that progress. anything but stupid.

there won't be complete global peace until every nation has decided to stop using violence to solve both its inner and outer conflicts. we can't in good conscience tell anyone how to deal with their own problems, that's what's wrong with the world today as you can tell from the actions of our own country. but we, and any other member of the global community, CAN tell them how to deal with us, and more and more countries are asking that conflicts be solved diplomatically as well as taking the initiative to use diplomacy.

[SmokeSomeDoja]

i might....but the havent. where is the evidence that nations leaders and their people have realized that war is wrong? there is none. all there is is a statistic that says that no two countries have declared war since 2003 besides the u.s. against afghanistan and iraq or russia against georgia. that doesnt mean anything.


i dont really know how true that is man. nations are taking care of problems within their own nation? what do you mean by that? that just sounds to me like:

"tyrant a. is killing people within his own nations boundaries, not the people outside it."



that doesnt really mean anything. especially considering that covert operations, state sponsered terrorism, "insurgencies," etc. are not defined as war, when it is clear to me that it is. if anything, war is just evolving into different forms. just because it may or may not necessarily be between two distinct nations is kind of pointless to argue to me.

[Prophet Saddam]

Is there a need for the devil's advocacy?

I think it's very notable that there was such a long period of 'world peace.'


I'm pretty sure our blunder in Iraq played a big role in other countries taking it easy.

[SmokeSomeDoja]

i wasnt aware i was playing one.


nerd.



http://www.informationclearinghouse....rticle4068.htm

[verklingen]

yeah man that's exactly what i mean. countries are being left to their own devices, it's up to the people ruled by tyrants to bring the tyrants down like it should have been up to the iraqis to bring down saddam if they really wanted to. sure tyranny is "bad," but it's no one else's place to decide what direction they will go. that's just tyranny of another kind.

[SmokeSomeDoja]

i see what youre saying and wasnt even thinking of "intervention" or whatever you want to call it.


i just think the author of the article is focusing too much on semantics. if that is indeed a trend (which i cant say im convinced of), then thats good. but like i said, i wasnt thinking of two states warring being over intervention purposes. because it never is...maybe on the surface..

[Mescalito]

That article was.. retarded.

M

[verklingen]

how was it retarded matchu? i think it makes a good point, and it affirms my observation that war is being treated like less and less of an option. we're finally realizing that countries stand to gain more through trade and diplomacy than through show of force. we're all interconnected through labor and the trade and industry this labor yields: a kind of web we've been weaving tighter and tighter with each passing day since the age of discovery. a major disruption in any part of this web interrupts the global economy: the shared lifeblood which sustains every government. we're trapped in it, and as we learn to deal with it war is seeming more and more like a disruption we cannot afford.

[Mescalito]

^It was the way it was phrased and presented that made it retarded. Your take on it is much better than the actual article.. and that is good news. I'm thinking 2012.. shits coming.. the dam is breaking.. know what I mean?

M

[Ego Tripping]

Yeah the article itself was lame (it was from the Christian Science Monitor) but it's just nice to know that things like this are not going by un-noticed. Just trying to share the good news I find, there's plenty of the other side, trying to balance those scales.